Explore by Topic
Explore by Format
Search Results | 74 results found
Brian asks: “Science can't say whether God represents a loving, vengeful or nonexistent being. But researchers have revealed for the first time how such religious beliefs trigger different parts of the brain.”How should we think about these efforts to locate religion in brain activity?
Some think they can solve the conflict between Darwinism and design by combining the two into one: theistic evolution, God using evolution as His creative tool. This idea may make Christians feel safe, but it has no traction for real Darwinists. To evolutionists, adding God over-determines the result. It’s like saying that water boils because of heat and leprechauns. If heat alone can do the job, though, why add elves? The leprechaun is superfluous.
I had to chuckle at the opening line of a recent AP release on “artificial” life: “Around the world, a handful of scientists are trying to create life from scratch and they’re getting closer.” They think the effort “has the potential to shed new light on our place in the universe, [removing] one of the few fundamental mysteries about creation in the universe and our role.”
I want to comment on an article that I saw in the L.A. Times yesterday on column one. That's the first column on the front page. They usually have something a little bit more in-depth and less timely, usually a more reflective piece. This piece is entitled "Rethinking the Origins of Sin--Genetic findings prompt religious leaders to take a new look at good and evil. One major question: should you condemn someone for something they're predisposed to do?"